Abramoff May Have Killed Democracy

As a republican, I find it impossible to reconcile my beliefs with the actions of a fellow lobbyist and partisan. In fact, if I may be so bold, I attest that Jack Abramoff may have done more damage that he realizes. His actions, and those of the legislators whom he influenced, will ultimately bring about the demise of our system of government. Bold statement, I know. Let me explain.

On the surface, lobbying seems like a bad thing. Most Americans associate lobbyists with bribery, cheating and backroom deals. While in the case of Abramoff this may have been proven true, the reality is that for the other 99% of lobbyists, it’s not.

I work at an association that represents nearly 30,000 people from across the county. Our members are primarily first responders, people who are generally considered heroes. I think someone would be hard pressed to call us a “special interest group” because that phrase usually has a negative connotation (thanks to the media), even though that’s exactly what we are. We represent the special interests of our members, because their interests are different – special – than those of the general population.

Our association does not have a PAC (political action committee) that raises, and then donates, money to Congressional campaigns. As a result, we communicate with Congress the old fashioned way – by going to Capitol Hill and discussing our issues with Congressional staff in person, at lunch briefings, etc. We do not “buy votes” as some might say. We use our collective influence to let Members of Congress know that what they do might hamper (or help) the ability of our members to do their jobs.

Thanks to Abramoff, politicians are now scared to communicate with their constituencies. All of this knee-jerk reaction “let’s reform government” talk ends up being self-defeating in the end. Because jack Abramoff took advantage of people by cheating and stealing, he has now cast his whole party in a negative light. And eager to not be seen as criminal by the American public, Congress is willing to trade away the rights of their constituents to lobby in order for them to be seen as immune to the corruptible system.

While limiting things like lunches and trips may sound reasonable on the surface (because we are so accustomed now of thinking of our elected leaders as cheats), these types of moves don’t do anything but force corruption deeper underground. Limiting our ability to educate lawmakers by inviting them to lunch so that we can explain our positions without interruption will not stop corruption. It will kill the smaller voices who need to be heard, and increase the power of the elites who actually do have inside access to politicians.

Those with the most power, money and influence will not be affected by this change. If anything, it will encourage more organizations to start playing the campaign contribution game, since that will become the only way for a group (or individual) to be heard. And now that the other perks are gone, Congress will eschew any further attempt to curb campaign abuse because that will be their only source of gaining influence and power. And campaign money is where the real corruption exists.

Jack Abramoff, in his greed, has just effectively slammed the door in the face of legitimate (and poor) special interests. He has created an environment where the problem will go deeper underground, and thus have a more insidious effect on politics. Power is addictive, and money is the fuel that drives the race to gain more power. Curbing lobbying will not fix this.

By paying lip service to the concerns of the left-wing and the media, we have just created a more powerful class of elites. Those few who will have so much money as to have direct access to whomever they please. Not because they paid for a few skyboxes or dinners, but because they don’t have to.